You know, I just realized something that I've seen skeptics use as an argument against cryptozoology If creatures like bigfoot, chupacabra, nessie etc truly physically exist they surely we'd be able to identify their ancestors through the fossil record, yes?Even if we can't find bigfoot himself we should still be able to find the fossils of the genus they evolved from, right?Like, we'd be able to find remnants of giant bipedal apes fucking around North America
>>5116218Homo sapiens is the only ape that has ever lived in north america and checks all the bigfoot boxes>large bipedal ape>naturally adapted to mixed woodlands and plains>every hominid known has done its best to make its dead hard to find, either through burial or cannibalism>purposefully avoids detection>bigfoot DNA is always human>bigfoot bones are always human>bigfoot hair is always human mixed with other animals (wearing furs)Look at a purestrain abbo. Imagine small tribes of paler, hairier abbos living in north america. There you go. Bigfoot. And bigfoot can arise many times from different human populations. There have been many human races on this continent. Central asians, europeans, and south asians have all came here in multiple waves, some lost to history and only preserved in myths. It’s possible canaanites actually made it to the americas once since they were seafaring peoples. Bigfoot is also inconsistent because its random degenerated wildmen who are skeletally and genetically human but a bit ugly and inbred in the flesh.
>>5116218>>5116219What you both fail to consider is the quantum theory with bigfoot which seems to be the most coherent, that being bigfoot is an organism not strictly limited to mathmatical 3rd dimensional constraints and is able to sense something like the second dimension from a more coherent perspective, giving it the ability to navigate such spaces in turn along the plane. That is why they are documented just about everywhere through out history but at the sametime are elusive.To illustrate it in another way, we can see a blank piece of paper and see both sides. We can imagine the paper with just one side as it is one step below our current awareness, but you will never be trully able to see or percieve a piece of paper with only one side. Because we can't really see existence from that lense that means it is a lot harder to understand entities that might be able to percieve 2nd dimensional space and traverse accordingly.
>>5116219Don't listen to this Mormon. He's still trying to find the Urim and Thummim to prove his made up books true.>>5116218Where's the scat? I've found all other kinds of shit in the woods but not bigfoot shit. My guess? Misidentified bipedal bear. Makes more sense than transatlantic Canaanites lmao
>>5116234Just because canaanites made it over doesnt mean they founded the natives civilization. Europeans made it over three or four times and fucked off or died out every time until the 1700s. They more than likely influenced a few religions and operated as a short lived priest/merchant caste before devolving into bigfoot. Or as he was first known, bignose.
>>5116248Fuck off, Brigham.
>>5116249>literally any cope to avoid the basic realization that the people who sacrificed humans atop stepped pyramids and had cultural parallels with another continent did in fact have some cultural exchange with people from another continent that also sacrificed humans atop stepped pyramidsWhy do mesoamericans have so many stories about people with turkic/european features? Its almost like humans like to build boats, fill them with supplies, and fuck off and drink their own piss until they land somewhere new.
>>5116218>able to identify their ancestors through the fossil record, yes?That assumes that people have found said fossils, which is an assumption you can't make. Lack of proof is not the same thing as proof to the contrary.There are cases where this could work though. Take 'lake monsters' like "Nessie" for example. You take water samples, you test the DNA in the water, and there either is or isn't giant sea monster DNA in there.
>>5116218To be clear, I don't particularly believe in bigfoot, but playing devil's advocate.The way I see it, it's reasonable for there to be no fossils found if bigfoot:>crossed over to america only some tens of thousands of years ago>before that, evolved somewhere where we haven't looked for fossils much like the himalayas or siberia or something>have a very low population density>are smart enough to take some special care of their dead that makes fossilization unlikely/fossils hard to find
